Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[Heywood]

A sperm never has an expectation of person-hood. A sperm ceases to exist at conception. A sperm is something that is consumed in the process of creating an organism which does have a future expectation of person-hood.

Your comparison of a sperm to a fetus is silly because they are quite different things. One is complete organism...the other is gamete. This is high school biology....you should know this.

You do see how silly it is to talk of any single cell (fertilized or not) having an expectation of anything. Sure it might become a person, but it's really not ready to anticipate anything at all.

Is your argument that once the genetic deck has been shuffled suddenly it's a person? It isn't. It has no brain or sense of self. It's just a little sack of DNA. It's really no more a person than the egg and sperm were before they united. Eggs are not chickens.

I'm making two arguments.
1. Future expected person-hood is one reason we grant human beings moral protection while past person-hood isn't.
2. A sperm has no expectation of future person-hood unless it fuses with an ovum.

[Baqal]

@Heywood
-2. A sperm has no expectation of future person-hood unless it fuses with an ovum.
How exactly do these expectations suddenly pop in? Do you think a sperm is "motivated" to reach the ovum and become a complex organism?

[Heywood]

@Heywood
-2. A sperm has no expectation of future person-hood unless it fuses with an ovum.
How exactly do these expectations suddenly pop in? Do you think a sperm is "motivated" to reach the ovum and become a complex organism?

I misspoke....I should have left out the "unless it fuses with an Ovum part. A sperm really has no future expectation of person-hood. A sperm is destroyed and ceases to exist in the conception process. If you see a future expectation of person-hood in sperm...well then maybe you should give it moral protection. I won't stop you.

If in your mind future expectation of person-hood doesn't grant a being moral protection....then you should be okay with killing a perfectly healthy human being under general anesthesia. The moment a human is under general anesthesia...they are simply a piece of meat.....there is no person there....so it should be "okay" to kill that being....right?

Now if you claim the human under general anesthesia past person-hood grants that human moral protection....then you should be opposed to pulling the plug and letting a brain dead human die. A brain dead human was a person in the past.

I choose as my moral code to simply to grant beings with future expectation of person-hood moral protection. Its short, its sweet, and it makes sense.....however a consequence of that moral code is a pro-life position.

[Jenny A]

I'm making two arguments.
1. Future expected person-hood is one reason we grant human beings moral protection while past person-hood isn't.
2. A sperm has no expectation of future person-hood unless it fuses with an ovum.

No we grant human beings moral protection because they are human beings not because they might become human beings. This notion that fetuses let alone zygotes are human or should be treated as such is both new and modern.

Interesting footnote you might consider, we have historically provided some moral protection to past humans. Many societies have both honored the wishes of the dead in the form of wills and most have laws against dishonoring a corpse.

[Bibliofagus]

If in your mind future expectation of person-hood doesn't grant a being moral protection....then you should be okay with killing a perfectly healthy human being under general anesthesia. The moment a human is under general anesthesia...they are simply a piece of meat.....there is no person there....so it should be "okay" to kill that being....right?

Hell no. First of all: A perfectly healthy human being under anesthesia? Why the hell would anyone do that?
Most people under anesthesia choose to be sedated either implicitly or explicitly. And they do so in the expectation there will be efforts to heal the illness that causes the pain.
Also this 'future person' of yours has lived a life, made friends, has people who love the 'future person'. And their love is why these friends and loved ones tend to say stuff like 'I hope he gets better' instead of 'I hope he becomes a person again'. Sheesh.

Now if you claim the human under general anesthesia past person-hood grants that human moral protection....then you should be opposed to pulling the plug and letting a brain dead human die. A brain dead human was a person in the past.

Nope. See above. I also carry a medallion that has a legal document in it relieving anybody of the obligation to keep me alive in that situation. It's very explicit.
I (a person) chose to do so. If I wouldn't have the document I'd have implicitly stated 'keep me alive'.

I choose as my moral code to simply to grant beings with future expectation of person-hood moral protection. Its short, its sweet, and it makes sense.....however a consequence of that moral code is a pro-life position.

And forced labor for women who don't want a baby but are unlucky enough to get pregnant. But let me get this straight: are you really saying that we should force people into labor because it fixes the (mostly semantic) issues you have about "the future and past personhood" of a fucking hypothetical "perfectly healthy human being under anesthesia" and braindead people?

For real?

[theheretic]

Well, I think the title of this post doesn't really explain what this post really is about.

Last night there was a HUGE debate about abortion between 2 atheists, a scientist who has no religious or anti religious views, and about 15 Christians. Go figure, right?

This debate was about abortion, obviously. The Christians views were that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg then it creates a life. I can understand that. BUT they did not want to take consciousness in to consideration. Consciousness was like a brand new curse word to them or something. They also used the term "life" and used that as a claim against abortion. So, I went on to explain my views.

My entire view point, in a whole on abortion, is that I am pro-choice. With stipulations but if you want to know, I have no problem telling you. Anyways, being pro-choice meant I had to have some sources and facts to back up what I was saying. Maybe this isn't a fact, I suppose it could be an opinion, but isn't consciousness, life? Or life = consciousness?

Think about it. When someone gets into a bad car wreck or dies then is brought back to life...say they don't "make" it. They're entirely brain dead. If there is no consciousness, their brain is dead then their body is not capable of functioning without the assistance of robots/machines. Correct? So, the majority of people "pull the plug" to end the bodies suffering and pain. So, why is this any different from abortion?

A fetus does not gain consciousness until 23 - 26 weeks of gestation. So, if the fetus does not have a conscious...does this mean it cannot detect its surroundings? Does this not mean that if it were born at that current moment, that it would die?

Anyways, just some thoughts. I would like to see what others feel on this.

Definitions:

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability

con·scious·ness [kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5.
concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.


life [lahyf] Show IPA
noun, plural lives [lahyvz] Show IPA .
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.



a baby has more info stored in its dna than any libraries or computer
. I would also point out many people aren't conscious, either by mental illness or drugs but I don't suggest euthanizing them.

---

The topic of abortion brings emotions from all the participants and it's controversial, however arguing it with religious people is a waste of time since they are only against abortion because there is already a soul... Such bullshit. I am pro-choice but I wont' be arguing on this again, there is already a thread, we've been trough this

well if you believe evolution, then the goo we supposedly crawled from must have had some built in instructions to go in , yet babies don't?

[Dystopia]

well if you believe evolution, then the goo we supposedly crawled from must have had some built in instructions to go in , yet babies don't?

Ahah

No I don't believe in evolution, I just accept facts, it's not exactly a choice you see? Before making an argument, learn how to write english properly so others can understand your thinking. I'm starting to be really proud of my english, as someone who lives in a country where barely 23% of people can speak fluently in english (and by fluently, I mean being able to hold a conversation with British tourists to give directions and talking about the news, that kind of stuff)

[Heywood]

No we grant human beings moral protection because they are human beings not because they might become human beings. This notion that fetuses let alone zygotes are human or should be treated as such is both new and modern.

Interesting footnote you might consider, we have historically provided some moral protection to past humans. Many societies have both honored the wishes of the dead in the form of wills and most have laws against dishonoring a corpse.

Zygotes are human beings. You can open up a biology text and look at the life cycle of a human being. It will show a zygote...or a fetus. From a purely scientific standpoint zygotes are human beings in the earliest stages of development.

Honoring the wishes made by dead people when they were alive is not providing moral protection to dead people. It is simply honoring the wishes made by a person when they were alive. To my knowledge there are no laws against dishonoring a corpse. There are laws against desecrating a corpse....but there are also laws against vandalizing a car....and cars aren't granted moral protection. Laws against desecrating a corpse do not exist to protect the corpse. They exist for public health reasons, they exist to for the sake of the loved ones left behind, they exist a means of criminalizing the cover-up of crimes.

---

If in your mind future expectation of person-hood doesn't grant a being moral protection....then you should be okay with killing a perfectly healthy human being under general anesthesia. The moment a human is under general anesthesia...they are simply a piece of meat.....there is no person there....so it should be "okay" to kill that being....right?

Hell no. First of all: A perfectly healthy human being under anesthesia? Why the hell would anyone do that?
Most people under anesthesia choose to be sedated either implicitly or explicitly. And they do so in the expectation there will be efforts to heal the illness that causes the pain.

Most people expect that their future expected person-hood be morally protected.

Also this 'future person' of yours has lived a life, made friends, has people who love the 'future person'. And their love is why these friends and loved ones tend to say stuff like 'I hope he gets better' instead of 'I hope he becomes a person again'. Sheesh.

Murder is wrong because A)it robs a person of future expected person-hood. and/or B) It robs living members of society the companionship of the victim. I'm sure you will agree that a person doesn't have to have any friends or loved ones to be morally protected. It would be wrong to kill a human even if that human won't be missed by anyone.

Now I have considered adding past person-hood as a condition of moral protection. For instance moral protection should be granted to human beings who have a history of past person-hood and have an expectation of future person-hood. However if you think about it....the only reason whatsoever to add the condition of past personhood....is to justify abortion. It just doesn't feel right to add that provision to my moral code just so I can justify the killing of certain human beings. Without that provision, my code is coherent and consistent.

[Jenny A]

Zygotes are human beings. You can open up a biology text and look at the life cycle of a human being. It will show a zygote...or a fetus. From a purely scientific standpoint zygotes are human beings in the earliest stages of development.

Not really. I'm sure text books so describe the zygote in the human life cycle, but that has nothing to do with whether a zygote, which is really just a collection of unthinking unfeeling cells, is a person. It just happens to be a collection that could become a person.

Honoring the wishes made by dead people when they were alive is not providing moral protection to dead people. It is simply honoring the wishes made by a person when they were alive.

Yes, but you see they are dead when we do the honoring.

To my knowledge there are no laws against dishonoring a corpse. There are laws against desecrating a corpse....but there are also laws against vandalizing a car....and cars aren't granted moral protection. Laws against desecrating a corpse do not exist to protect the corpse. They exist for public health reasons, they exist to for the sake of the loved ones left behind, they exist a means of criminalizing the cover-up of crimes.

To desecrate is not just to vandalize it is much more specific than that. To desecrate is to:

1: to violate the sanctity of : profane <desecrate a shrine>
2: to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously <the kind of shore development … that has desecrated so many waterfronts — John Fischer>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desecrate

And as you might guess from the definition of desecration one of the original reasons for anti-desecration laws was honoring the corpse for religious reasons. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23...24593.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecration
We may have added public health and forensics to our list of reasons for not desecrating a corpse but honoring the dead remains one of the prime reasons it is frowned upon.

Notice that this statute has nothing to do with hiding a corpse or public health:

Fla. Statute 872.06(2) A person who mutilates, commits sexual abuse upon, or otherwise grossly abuses a dead human body commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any act done for a bona fide medical purpose or for any other lawful purpose does not under any circumstance constitute a violation of this section.

[Mister Agenda]

A person under general anesthesia isn't conscious either.

No, but they have been conscious. They have hopes and dreams and relationships. What they are experiencing is akin to a computer being rebooted. If all goes well, it will come back on.

Would it be okay for a scorned woman to kill her cheating husband while he is under general anesthesia? Of course not. Given time that person under general anesthesia will become conscious and live a life. A person under general anesthesia has a future expectation of person-hood and that is what we give moral protection. A brain dead person has no future expectation of person-hood which is why many don't find it immoral to simply pull the plug. A fetus on the other hand does have a future expectation of person-hood which is why it is wrong to kill it.

Fetuses don't expect anything.

---

A brain dead person has a history of being too.....yet the reason you pull the plug has nothing to do with that history of person-hood but rather the lack of expectation of future person-hood....or future being.

Not future personhood. Restored personhood.

The fact that we pull the plug on brain dead people is evidence that a history of person-hood....a history of being....isn't what confers moral protection.

Certainly it is. Why would we even hesitate to pull the plug if the brain-dead person had never been conscious in the first place? We'd be like 'finally this person who has been in a coma their whole life is brain dead, finally we can pull the plug!'. No crying wife, probably no parents that still visit if the unfortunate is physically adult. It's almost a mercy compared to what would happen if they woke up, an infant in an adult's body, their crucial brain development years lost. Such a person would probably never be able to learn to talk.

The OP is making the claim that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they are willing to pull the plug on an unconscious brain dead person but find it morally reprehensible to abort an unconscious fetus. I am showing that it isn't inconsistent....and in fact the opposite is true.

By pretending the brain-dead patient's history of consciousness is irrelevant.

When you take the position that future expectation of person-hood is what is deserving of moral protection everything makes sense.

Why should YOUR expectation be what's critical? If I go under general anaesthesia, I have an expectation that I will be revived, if possible. I wouldn't go under the knife without that implicit understanding. The medical staff and I have a social contract that they'll try to restore me and won't let crazy people murder me all willy nilly. My expectation, my trust, is the key to the procedure going forward. The situation for a fetus is quite different.

It is okay to pull the plug on a brain dead person because there is no expectation of future person-hood.

It is okay to pull the plug on a brain dead person because there is no expectation that we can restore their previous personhood.

It is wrong to kill an person under general anesthesia because there is a future expectation of person-hood.

It is wrong to kill a person under GA because they are already a person, or, if you insist, their personhood can be restored.

The OP's fixation with consciousness actually causes inconsistencies. If it is okay to kill a fetus because it is unconscious.....why then is it wrong to kill unconscious sleeping human being?

An unconscious human being has a 'life' to lose in a different sense than a fetus has. Relationships, history, choices, education, accomplishments, mistakes, and so on. A fetus, by comparison, is more 'biologically active', not 'inert material'.

[i]life/līf/
noun
1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
2.the existence of an individual human being or animal.
3.the period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.

An unconscious person has a life in all these senses. I'm not sure a fetus has life in any sense but the first...it's not really an individual yet, it is a part of the mother that has never known consciousness. It's alive, but it hasn't truly lived.

I acknowledge this adds a new element besides consciousness.

---

Similarly, the woman who refuses to carry to term can do so, for the same reason (no reason given) and the effect will be the same. Law shouldn't be able to compel you to carry the child.

It's still different. In the first you just say 'No'. On the second you need to positively have a conduct that leads to terminating your pregnancy. Am I the only one seeing these are conceptually and physically different actions despite the same result?

Say in the first case you say 'Yes'. But a month in you change your mind and need to postively have a conduct that leads to the 2 year old being disconnected from you and the child dying. Are the cases sufficiently similar now for you not to base your objection on their differences?